posted at 12:41 pm on July 25, 2014 by Noah Rothman

Republicans in Congress and in the commentariat are fed up with this White House failing to faithfully execute the law, as is its constitutional charge. Regarding this administration’s selective enforcement of the laws passed by Congress – ranging from DOMA to DACA, from recess appointments made while Congress was in session to the delayed and selective implementation of the Affordable Care Act – the GOP is foursquare behind a proposal to sue the president over his flagrant abuse of authority.

The public at large, however, is less than enthralled with the idea of suing President Obama. “Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that the Republicans in the U.S. House should file a lawsuit against Obama, or don’t you feel that way?” CNN/ORC pollsters recently asked the public. 57 percent said that the GOP should not sue Obama while just 41 percent supported the lawsuit.

On its face, this makes little sense when compared to another finding in this poll: a plurality of Americans think Obama “has gone too far” in his effort to extend the powers of the presidency. 45 percent agree that Obama is expanding executive authority beyond its appropriate constitutional limits while just 22 percent say he has not gone “far enough.” Only self-identified liberals, Democrats, northeasterners, and urban residents disagree that the president has exceeded the boundaries placed on him by the Founders. Another 30 percent of respondents believe Obama’s actions are “about right.”

How do you square these two incongruous results? While a plurality may believe that Obama has exceeded his authority and should be reined in, the public may also think a lawsuit filed by already suspect congressional Republicans is the right instrument to accomplish that.

The public’s calculation may yet change, particularly if Obama moves forward with even more excessive executive actions. Time Magazine, for example, suggested on Thursday that Obama may be preparing to unilaterally implement part of the immigration reform bill, which passed the Senate in 2013 but failed in the House, and extend legal status to up to 8 million illegal U.S. residents. That remains an unlikely eventuality. Barring a similar abuse of power, the GOP has a lot of educating to do in order to convince the public that this lawsuit is appropriate.

And that education effort will be a titanic task.

Appearing on MSNBC with Chuck Todd on Friday for the first leg of an upcoming book tour cum anti-poverty push, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) was asked about only one other issue besides his Earned Income Tax Credit proposal: the House lawsuit.

“Is this a productive – a productive thing for House Republicans to be focused on in an election year?” an incredulous Todd asked.

“We can walk and chew gum at the same time,” Ryan replied. He conceded that the traditional vehicle to rein in the executive would be the power of the purse – a vehicle stuck in neutral while the Senate continues to shield the president from legislative checks. That is why, Ryan said, he will support the lawsuit.

The tone of Todd’s question is instructive. The press, the political entertainment complex, and the liberal establishment in general will frame this lawsuit as a waste of time at best or, at worst, an example of Obama’s persecution at the hands of deranged Republicans. There are precious few examples in the recent past of instances when the GOP was able to speak over the heads of the media and convince an already skeptical public that their course of action is the correct one.

It seems possible, given the general mistrust in the president, that a narrow majority could be convinced that the House lawsuit is necessary. The Republicans, however, will have to stop acting coy and self-conscious about it and make that case. All the while, they will not be talking about economic opportunity, Obamacare, the nightmare on the southern border, or the president’s inattention to crises overseas. Democrats, meanwhile, would like nothing more than to contend that they are dealing with a myopic opposition party which is far more focused on scoring political points against Obama than the concerns of the public.

Republicans may believe that a principle is at stake and preserving the Constitution’s separation of powers though the courts is worth taking a hit in the polls. In an election year, that is a risky proposition and the pursuit of principle could mean the difference between emboldening or neutering the Obama presidency in its final years.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

The constitution was the start of the US, not the end. It was a pretty decent start, and kudos to the founding fathers on it. But it was far from perfect and by itself totally incapable of providing for the government of a modern nation. All those laws you hate? Those are the mortar of our nation. But you want to tear our house apart and replace it with a broken pile of bricks…because of a long outdated philosophical model you refuse to re-evaluate no matter what.

Should Obama be impeached or sued for breaking his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Select:
1. Impeach and Prosecute to remove from office.

2. Sue because there is no constitutional provision for the House to sue the POTUS, and Obama ignores/breaks law. So what difference, at this point, does it make?

Polls only produce the desired result. AS IF CNN propagandizes against ANY Obama agenda. pfft

You can bet money that if House Republican weenies “dare” to mumble against Obama/Holder and whoever else, it is ONLY to pacify the majority of constituents. Members of Congress take polls every day, counting calls and letters. Not that they act accordingly. The calls to Congress are to impeach Obama. The “best” response from Republicans is to sue Obama, which lawsuit amounts to diddlysquat.

Tlaloc: But it was far from perfect and by itself totally incapable of providing for the government of a modern nation.

You’re wrong about that.

Our Constitutional Republic, complete with Bill of Rights, proved to be the most magnificently balanced symmetrical structure for governance.

The only thing lacking are the responsible citizenry.

Without the citizens who take responsibilities of Liberty seriously, of course politicians take advantage of office for personal profits. At which point, it’s a mob, everyone out to take as much as they can without producing anything of value in return.

Tralala.

No fault of the structural form which of itself is as perfect as can be, when organized criminals sabotage and demolish the structure. “Because I Could” — Clinton isn’t the first nor the only politician with that motto. Sadly, that motto has replaced our national motto “In God We Trust” and E Pluribus Unum — out of many peoples, one people.

Only 15 years ago, Hollywood movies (Robin Williams) were still propagandizing the Virtue of Legal Emigration, with a female judge swearing in the new citizens with their oath of allegiance, reminding them that they are no longer subjects to any government, but are citizens of the United States of America where there are “no hyphenated ethnic identities”.

Don’t forfeit what matters as the essence of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Unless you don’t care, and don’t want any freedom to think or do, according to your own talents and personal goals. Even then, you have no right to order others to forfeit Constitutional Governance because inconvenience is terribly politically incorrect, and you like being PC.

When the ultimate crash occurs, don’t forfeit the minimal simple responsibilities due from government (protect the borders), and advocate and vote for constitutional integrity: separated and limited powers. All the agendas and programs and phnu-phnu aside, keep expectations simple, stupid.

. . . . . Sure there are times when a courageous dissent from popular opinion can be useful and necessary, but the right’s temper tantrum is growing very old very quickly. If you guys can’t govern get the &^%$ out of office and let others who can do so.

Tlaloc on July 25, 2014 at 5:11 PM

.
That kind of talk leaves no room for any other options in response, except surrender (on our part), or blood-shed.
.
I have *zero* intention of surrendering this country to those of your political ideology/philosophy of governance, and it is something worth going to “blood shed”, over.
Either those kind of words from you are intended as ‘fighting words’, because you’re ready to go “toe-to-toe”, OR … you’re one of those instigators, who like to incite two opposing sides into trying to kill each other, and then stand waaay back at a safe distance, and enjoy the show.